Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 16:57:19
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » alexandra_k, posted by JenStar on September 6, 2005, at 10:51:01
I think comparative religion is an interesting topic. What I mean by comparative religion is treating religion as history / anthropology. A study of what different groups of people believe.
That is an observational process. Observing and learning about what these people do in fact believe.
With respect to evaluating what these people believe (are their beliefs grounded, are they true beliefs, should they believe those things)...
That is a topic in epistemology (study of knowledge / truth) which is a part of philosophy, and more in particular... It is philosophy of religion.
And that is an interesting topic...
But to make all interesting topics compulsory in the high school curriculum is an impossible task... One has to give the students options... And one must always select what is going to be compulsory as opposed to optional.
>How about you, Alexandra? Did you learn about religion while growing up?
Yeah.
I started attending church as a teenager for a while.
Pentecostal variety...
I read the whole bible...
Mostly so I could say I had :-)> I think it's very hard to argue and compare a scientific theory to a religious theory because you keep bumping up against that belief.
Yeah. Thats what the intelligent design peoples deny, however. The intelligent design hypothesis is considered (by them) to be a scientific theory rather than a religious theory.
And in response to that I can only reiterate what I've already said. The intelligent design hypothesis is either false or unflasifiable or not appropriately construed as a scientific theory. I go with the latter. If they are determined to construe it as a scientific theory then I have to say it is either false or unflasifiable.
Also...
Before one posits an intelligent designer as an explanation...
Hadn't one better get to work in proving the existence of an intelligent designer?Are arguments for the existence of god supposed to be scientific arguments now too????
> I think many religious Creationist people are very scared to think that evolution might be "right", because then the bible might be "wrong" and then all the foundations of religion could weaken and crumble, and God could dissolve into the mist.Yeah. None of that follows, though.
Literalist interpretations of the Bible don't work out anyways.
Evolutionary theory isn't inconsistent with religion
It is inconsistent with a strictly literalist interpretation of the Bible, though.
But IMO the Bible is a spiritual text
Teaching spiritual truths
It isn't supposed to be construed literally.
It is just the literalists who are having a problem.
Because if the Bible utters literal truths about the world then it seems to be an alternative to science.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:551237
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050903/msgs/551465.html